quote:

---

...I think they were burning it to celebrate their freedom to do so, a freedom specifically lacking from other nations they had visited.

---

quote:

---

But let's take on the discussion of burning a flag just because you can. How is that unpatriotic? Patriotism, as defined by me, is a measure of how much you love, support and are loyal to a nation. If I went out tomorrow and burned a flag, does that really say anything about my loyalty to a nation? What if a US soldier did it? Clearly they defend it, are loyal to it and they love it, or they wouldn't be fighting and risking their lives for it, but what if they burned a flag? Why is the flag a magical barometer of your patrotism? Displaying of flag = Patriotic, burning of flag = unpatriotic? Silly.

---

quote:

---

You can tie a lot of things to patriotism that don't really have anything to do with your actual level of patriotism. Like your voting record. People who don't vote don't care about America and have a serious disdain for Democracy, therefore if you don't vote, you are unpatriotic.

---

quote:

---

People who don't buy American clearly don't support America, because they are supporting potential enemies, therefore if you see anyone driving anything other than a Ford, Chrysler or GM, they are unpatriotic.

---

quote:

---

But do I think it means you hate and are disloyal to America just because you burned a piece of cloth?

---

quote:

---

I think this argument is academic at best though, as I have never in my life seen someone burn a flag just for the hell of it.

---

Well, you brought it up

quote:

---

But even in your question you've defined not the act of burning the flag as the crime, but the REASON for burning the flag. Burning it in protest, burning it for the hell of it, burning it in celebration, all are not equal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Burning the American flag to celebrate it is like spitting in someone's face to show how much you love them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:
I think the american flag is a respectable icon because it stands for the ideals of a country that won't criminalize the act of burning a particular sanctified piece of cloth.

---

quote:

---

burning a flag is not violent, but spitting in someone's face is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
I think it was not the spitting vs burning that was the distinction but the flag vs face. I suspect that he would also define burning a piece of cloth that someone was wearing at the time as violent, and spitting on something inanimate as not.

Or at least that's how I read it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Yes, there is a difference in violence between the two.

Nevertheless, I think that showing respect to America by burning its flag is very much like spitting on someone to show that you love them -- it's really doing the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Yes, there is a difference in violence between the two.

Nevertheless, I think that showing respect to America by burning its flag is very much like spitting on someone to show that you love them -- it's really doing the opposite.

---

quote:

---

burning the flag is an attack on all it stands, or at best a statement that the entire country is heading towards dire straights

---

quote:

---

I think one of the things that can be taken from this thread is that there are many people who do not feel this way, and indeed believe that banning flagburning is a far more serious attack on all that America stands for.

---

quote:

---

I think that, obviously, it's not.

---

quote:

---

The whole point is that the flag is just a piece of cloth and not as important as ideas it represents.

---

quote:

---

I think it's tantamount to a test. Daring the opposition really. Burning just to burn it to see who will dare come out and pick a fight with them over it. I think the Penn and Teller trick was clearly just such an act, if in fact a flag was or was not burned. It's throwing down the gauntlet.

---

quote:

---

Because in America we've built the flag up to be everything that is good and true about America, all the best hopes and dreams we have from 1776 until now about what America was at its best and what we've always celebrated about it are all tied up in that piece of cloth.

---

quote:

---

Remember when the Bush Administration more or less equated questioning their leadership with a lack of patriotism?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Because in America we've built the flag up to be everything that is good and true about America, all the best hopes and dreams we have from 1776 until now about what America was at its best and what we've always celebrated about it are all tied up in that piece of cloth.

---

That doesn't strike people as more than just mildly ridiculous? To me, it's almost worth burning a flag just to remind people that, dudes, it's just a freakin' flag, not the embodiment of the American ideal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

Because in America we've built the flag up to be everything that is good and true about America, all the best hopes and dreams we have from 1776 until now about what America was at its best and what we've always celebrated about it are all tied up in that piece of cloth.

---

That doesn't strike people as more than just mildly ridiculous? To me, it's almost worth burning a flag just to remind people that, dudes, it's just a freakin' flag, not the embodiment of the American ideal.

---

Would you then give your blessing to hunters who head out into our forests and rivers and blow bald eagles away to show that, DUDE they are just a freakin bird! Or that they support America's right to bear arms?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
Any given flag is a piece of cloth. It is a symbol of a greater referent: the country built from its inception on liberty. However, it is not the referent itself, it is not more important to the referent, and its value is not intrinsic but derived from that referent.

When the piece of cloth becomes venerated over that of which it is a referent (loosely, "liberty"), then there's an argument to be made that exercising the liberty and burning the mere symbol is an explicit reminder and acknowledgment that the symbol is not more important than the referent.

---

In the examples above, were TVs, eagles, and the faces of loved ones merely -- merely -- symbols of something greater, and if they were being systematically venerated over and above their referents, then the analogies might be applicable. But they aren't. Either they are not merely symbols, but intrinsically valued in themselves (e.g., loved ones), or they are not symbols of that which one might protest is being degraded in response to misdirected veneration.

---

You seem to have moved on from merely stealing my thoughts to stating them in a clearer more effective manner Claudia. I am not amused!
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
On a separate note, the use of a flag for commercial advertising is a clear violation of a [still standing, as far as I know] Supreme Court decision from 1907. I cannot see how this use is not illegal.

I've never understood why that issue wasn't more of a problem in general. It is for me.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
You seem to have moved on from merely stealing my thoughts to stating them in a clearer more effective manner Claudia. I am not amused!

---

I have been working on my evil plan for a long, long time. Your amusement is secondary to my ultimate exultant sense of world domination.

---

(But in all fairness, I think I am disagreeing with you, BlackBlade, or at least your prior posts in this thread. Maybe not so clear after all! *rueful)
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
You seem to have moved on from merely stealing my thoughts to stating them in a clearer more effective manner Claudia. I am not amused!

---

I have been working on my evil plan for a long, long time. Your amusement is secondary to my ultimate exultant sense of world domination.

---

(But in all fairness, I think I am disagreeing with you, BlackBlade, or at least your prior posts in this thread. Maybe not so clear after all! *rueful)

---

quote:

---

Would you then give your blessing to hunters who head out into our forests and rivers and blow bald eagles away to show that, DUDE they are just a freakin bird! Or that they support America's right to bear arms?

---

quote:

---

And I would no more burn a flag to spite those who are against flag burning than I would have an abortion to spite pro-lifers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
(But in all fairness, I think I am disagreeing with you, BlackBlade, or at least your prior posts in this thread. Maybe not so clear after all! *rueful)

---

Perhaps I misunderstood but were you saying that desecrating a symbol is justified when the symbol has become more venerated then the object it symbolizes?

edit: Not so much "justified" as "an arguement could be made for."

---

quote:

---

Does the flag have an intrinsic value to you? If so, why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

Would you then give your blessing to hunters who head out into our forests and rivers and blow bald eagles away to show that, DUDE they are just a freakin bird! Or that they support America's right to bear arms? I submit that there is a distinction between killing a member of an endangered species and burning a piece of cloth. If the only value in the life of an eagle were in its symbolism, then your analogy might have some potency.

---

quote:

---

Why is burning money illegal?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Why is burning money illegal?

---

Because technically it belongs to the federal government.

---

quote:

---

Does the flag have an intrinsic value to you? If so, why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
I've heard Teller talk.

---

It's a lie! A vicious lie! *plugs ears with fingers and hums*
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Good post, CT. Actually, several of them. I think the commercial use is possibly more dangerous to the symbol than burning it in protest. At least a more insidious danger.

The first time I went to Washington to protest, I deliberately excercised my first amendment rights. I read a news paper, I prayed, I assembled, I spoke freely, and (not in a legal sense) petitioned the government.

I think it is important to excercise our rights, to make sure they stay in shape for when we need them.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
I've heard Teller talk.

---

It's a lie! A vicious lie! *plugs ears with fingers and hums*

---

There are actually a couple videos online that have Teller speaking. But out of respect for you, Rivka, I won't post the links.
 

---

Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
So how about it? Will I get the same go-ahead nod if I decide to cowboy up, for no real reason, just because I can?

Somehow, I doubt it.

---

From me, you have the go ahead. You also have it from the government.

Provided, of course, you are responsible with it and don't start killing people.

And as far as you thinking that flag burning just because is stupid, that's fine. You have the right not to do it, and to protest against it.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 

quote:

---

Two, it's really not very difficult at all to imagine why someone would think the flag has intrinsic value.

---

Except that it is.
The flag has symbolic value that exceeds the intrinsic value of the medium on which it is printed or sewn. An eagle has, assuming you value eagles, the intrinsic value of an eagle, and potential symbolic value as a national symbol or tribal emblem or whatever.

Someone might sentimentally value all flags in the way that someone else might sentimentally value all wildlife -- but what one person considers sentimentally important is hardly relevant to this conversation.

But here's the thing: the symbolic value of the flag lies in its symbolism of the country itself, and (to most Americans) the concept of liberty. Banning flag-burning is a direct and obvious irony, and consequently many people (myself included) see burning a flag in response to the loss of liberty represented by a ban on flag-burning to be not only perfectly appropriate but practically mandatory.

That said, flag-burning in the absence of a ban on flag-burning is pretty tacky, and should be done only when attempting to call into question the symbols the flag is meant to represent. My use of "should" here does not imply that I would legislate against other uses. *grin*

I actually suspect that many people who oppose flag-burning do so because the flag, while representing "America" to them, do not believe that "America" represents "liberty" -- and thus don't feel the disconnect. Perhaps "America" represents martial triumph, or general nationalism, or even a nebulous concept of "freedom" divorced from specifics.

quote:

---

You know, I still haven't gotten a response to my purchasing a firearm question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
You know, I still haven't gotten a response to my purchasing a firearm question. Apparently, burning the flag just to burn it is OK because it's an expression of respect for the rights protected by the Constitution.

So how about it? Will I get the same go-ahead nod if I decide to cowboy up, for no real reason, just because I can?

---

quote:

---

I actually suspect that many people who oppose flag-burning do so because the flag, while representing "America" to them, do not believe that "America" represents "liberty" -- and thus don't feel the disconnect.

---

quote:

---

Except that it is.
The flag has symbolic value. An eagle has, assuming you value eagles, intrinsic value.

---

quote:

---

If rats disappeared off the face of the earth would you feel hurt?

---

quote:

---

So yes flag's have symbolic value, but they have intrinsic value as human beings need to have something fill the role that the flag fills.

---

Why? That's like saying that human beings need God.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
(I'm confused on how we agree now, BlackBlade, but I'm not going to pursue it. I'm pretty sure I can't follow it this morning. )

For what it's worth, I don't now, nor have I ever, felt any desire to burn a flag, except for the ones I see tattered from flapping in the wind off a car antenna or above the Madison Hummer dealership. However, that was a desire for a decent burial, not for protest.

Still, I don't find the perspective of those that do beyond the pale.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

That's like saying that human beings need God.

---

quote:

---

I wouldn't burn an American flag because that would be symbolically burning the country I love.

---

quote:

---

There are more important liberties we have lost than the right to burn a flag.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:


So yes flag's have symbolic value, but they have intrinsic value as human beings need to have something fill the role that the flag fills.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
If rats disappeared off the face of the earth would you feel hurt?Um. Yes. Why?

---

quote:

---

So yes flag's have symbolic value, but they have intrinsic value as human beings need to have something fill the role that the flag fills.Why? That's like saying that human beings need God.

---

quote:

---

Do you feel the existance of ever species is important?

---

quote:

---

I believe they do. Or at least I believe human beings are hard-wired to believe in some sort of governing entity.

---

quote:

---

Burning a flag doesn't fix any flaws, it just makes one an asshole.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:


So yes flag's have symbolic value, but they have intrinsic value as human beings need to have something fill the role that the flag fills.

---

I suspect we have a conflict of definitions here. Would you elaborate on how you are using the word "intrinsic"? Because, to me, saying that something needs to fill the role that the flag fulfills is still discussing the flag's symbolic value.

---

quote:

---

Heck we already have a symbold devised to represent that country being in distress or in the wrong its called hanging the flag upside down.

---

quote:

---

Heck we already have a symbold devised to represent that country being in distress or in the wrong its called hanging the flag upside down.

---

quote:

---

And those humans who do not seem to require this belief...?

---

quote:

---

mph: I am not sure what the difference is. I am positive that there are people who depict the flag upside down as a form of protest. Fred Phelps does it on his website.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Heck we already have a symbol devised to represent that country being in distress or in the wrong its called hanging the flag upside down.

---

Um, flying the flag upside down is a literal call for help, like sending out an SOS.

---

quote:

---

The first time I burn an American flag will be the day after they take away my right to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I'm disagreeing that flying the flag upside down is generally a symbol of the "country being in distress or in the wrong". It's a symbol of distress requesting help.

Phelps uses it in a metaphorical sense, but that doesn't change the meaning of it anymore than somebody using the word "mayday" in an advertisement changes its meaning.

---

quote:

---

I understand that OFFICIALLY the flag is flown upside down as a request for assistance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
The last time we had this thread, someone said something along the lines of

quote:

---

The first time I burn an American flag will be the day after they take away my right to.

---

I agreed with that statement then, and I do now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:


So yes flag's have symbolic value, but they have intrinsic value as human beings need to have something fill the role that the flag fills.

---

I suspect we have a conflict of definitions here. Would you elaborate on how you are using the word "intrinsic"? Because, to me, saying that something needs to fill the role that the flag fulfills is still discussing the flag's symbolic value.

---

I am saying that people have an intrinsic need for symbols, therefore flags are a product of that intrinsic need. Yes flags have symbolic value, but they only exist because people need to produce a symbol to represent the country they belong to/create.

If not a flag, then something else would be created. Heck we already have a symbold devised to represent that country being in distress or in the wrong its called hanging the flag upside down.

---

quote:

---

I think the most usual reason for me to break the law (at least knowingly) is in protest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:


So yes flag's have symbolic value, but they have intrinsic value as human beings need to have something fill the role that the flag fills.

---

I suspect we have a conflict of definitions here. Would you elaborate on how you are using the word "intrinsic"? Because, to me, saying that something needs to fill the role that the flag fulfills is still discussing the flag's symbolic value.

---

I am saying that people have an intrinsic need for symbols, therefore flags are a product of that intrinsic need. Yes flags have symbolic value, but they only exist because people need to produce a symbol to represent the country they belong to/create.

If not a flag, then something else would be created. Heck we already have a symbold devised to represent that country being in distress or in the wrong its called hanging the flag upside down.

---

Then I think you are missing the point of the earlier distinction between intrinsic and symbolic value. Intrinsic value, in that case, meaning value that the object itself has apart from its symbolic value.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
A turkey has intrinsic value because it can be eaten as food, regardless of its value as a symbol.

If you ignore its value as a symbol, the flag only has as much value as a random scrap of cloth that size.

But I agree with what you are saying -- just because the flag's value is tied to its symbolic meaning doesn't mean that value isn't real or important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
I think that you [edit: BB] are confusing "intrinsic" with "necessary." The symbolic value of flags might be necessary. It might even, as you say, fill an intrinsic need in humans. But the fact that the need is intrinsic to humans does not make the symbolic value an intrinsic to the flag.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
The word intrinsic is being used here to mean "as opposed to symbolic". A turkey has intrinsic value as food or as a part of the ecosystem even when you divorce it from its value as a symbol.

---

quote:

---

OK then but why does an ecosystem even matter then? Why does surviving via eating matter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Remember when the Bush Administration more or less equated questioning their leadership with a lack of patriotism?

---

Could you quote some examples of this? "More or less" leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so I'd like to know to exactly what you're referring before responding.

---

quote:

---

On Saturday, November 18, 2006, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales picked up the cudgels in a talk to 400 cadets from the Air Force Academy’s political science and law classes. Critics of the warrantless surveillance program were taking a “shortsighted” view, Gonzales said:

“Its [the critics'] definition of freedom -- one utterly divorced from civic responsibility -- is superficial and is itself a grave threat to the liberty and security of the American people."

---

quote:

---

It seems odd to me, how many people who support flag burning go batcaca crazy if you burn another countries flag. I once posted a very poor drawing of someone burning a french flag here during a debate on flag burning. It drew a great deal of venom. And not just the well deserved thrashing of my "art." I was told I insulted an entire people. I was told I didn't deserve politeness because I had dared to *draw* someone burning a *french* flag.

---

quote:

---

You know, I still haven't gotten a response to my purchasing a firearm question. Apparently, burning the flag just to burn it is OK because it's an expression of respect for the rights protected by the Constitution.

So how about it? Will I get the same go-ahead nod if I decide to cowboy up, for no real reason, just because I can?

---

Well, if, like you said before, that refers to carrying a concealed weapon, I don't really think your statement will mean all that much since no one will see it

But seriously, you can if you want, but I don't know what you would get out of it personally. Millions upon millions of Americans have weapons, and I'd imagine near that many carry them on their person, but nowhere near that many, probably not even in the triple digits, burn a flag every year. So, doing something that millions of others do is just following the crowd, you aren't really making much of a distinctive statement. Going against the grain and doing something you rarely see is a statement.

So to answer, sure, go for it, I won't argue against it, but I guess it's all about what you get it out of it personally, as I don't think you'd be making much of a public statement by doing so.

Blackblade -

What is it with you and ornithicide man? I don't think killing ANY creature is the same thing as burning a flag, they aren't at all comparable. If you want to hit closer to the mark, change it to burning an eagle effigy and I think you're back on track.

Pix again -

quote:

---

I wouldn't burn an American flag because that would be symbolically burning the country I love. Because despite our many flaws there's no better country in the world and no where I'd rather live.

Burning a flag doesn't fix any flaws, it just makes one an asshole.

There are many people who want to suck the liberty out of America. People who want to make a law to prohibit flag burning are pretty minor on the grand scheme of Statism. I'd take a law prohibiting flag burning in exchange for a law granting equal marriage rights... or a law that repeals the income tax and replaces it with the "fair tax". Or a law that rolled back a few social programs. Or a law that got rid of social security.

There are more important liberties than the right to burn a flag.

---

quote:

---

The first time I burn an American flag will be the day after they take away my right to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

I think the most usual reason for me to break the law (at least knowingly) is in protest.

---

When you break the law in protest, do you hide your protest or do you do it openly? Do you accept the legal punishment for your crimes, or do you try to avoid it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
There are more important liberties than the right to burn a flag.

---

The right to burn the flag is symbolic of the right to criticize our country and our leaders. For me, that is a fundamental right.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
CT, tish! You spoke geek!
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 

quote:

---

The right to burn the flag is symbolic of the right to criticize our country and our leaders.

---

Hmmm. That might be the root of some of the disconnect.
 

---

Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
 
I've never had any desire to burn a flag but if anyone passed a constitutional amendment banning flag burning I would have to go start a big flag bonfire in protest.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
rivka:
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 

quote:

---

Like I said earlier in the thread, I think what matters is your reasoning. Why did you depict a French flag? Was it to intentionally show disdain for France? If so, then I think you did in fact insult an entire people. If it was for no particular reason, then I have to wonder why you picked France and didn't just make a flag up, or why you didn't leave it blank? What matters most to me is intent. When someone burns the American flag because they want America to similarly burn in flames, then I'll denounce them, when they do it to protest a US action peaceably, then I'll let them do it. I think there is a difference, inherently, between burning your own flag and burning someone else's. Burning our flag can mean dozens of things, burning someone else's flag is almost always a sign of open contempt. I'm just curious as to what your reasons were.

---

quote:

---

I don't think you should be so liberal in your trading of freedoms. We aren't playing let's make a deal with our liberties, and there's no reason it should be an either/or situation.

---

quote:

---

The right to burn the flag is symbolic of the right to criticize our country and our leaders.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

The right to burn the flag is symbolic of the right to criticize our country and our leaders.

---

Hmmm. That might be the root of some of the disconnect.

---

quote:

---

Is there a reason to ban flag burning...

---

quote:

---

The editorial page of my newspaper isn't really my newspaper. And some forms of prostest are better suited to some situations. Just because we have a channel for protest, doesn't mean we should shut down opther channels.

---

quote:

---

And, as for your first point, in a representative government, the leaders are supposed to represent the whole country. Sometimes the country as a whole gets it wrong.

---

quote:

---

So the next time I object to the actions of one of my leaders strenuously, I should string up an effigy of that leader and torch it?

---

quote:

---

In what way? Is there a reason to ban flag burning that isn't about limiting what we can express about the county or its leaders or how we express that?

---

The only thing I've said about banning flag burning is that I do not support making it illegal.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
THT,

I'll repeat what's been said at least three times already: no one here is challenging the right to burn the flag. If by some chance someone has and I missed it, I do not think flag burning should be illegal.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
I've tried to get letters into the Letters to the Editor page. It's harder than I thought, and they edited them down when they did go through.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm going to decline, not because I can't find them, but because I think it has been covered enough in the media and for that matter on this website to the point where the behavior should be accepted as something that has happened, so I'm not going to go through the effort to put a list together. If you seriously question the inferences Administration officials have made (and may or may not have outright said so, but I can't recall a time off the top of my head), then I question how often you've watch or read national political news in the last two and a half years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
I chose a french flag specifically because the people who are most likely to defend flag burning tend to have an affinity for the French. In using a french flag I had hoped to invoke an emotional response that would demonstrate to them their own hypocrasy.

---

quote:

---

There is certainly good historic precendent for burning bad leaders in effigy.

And one can't always get letters printed, especially in privately own newspapers. Unless one privately owns one.

---

quote:

---

And one can't always get letters printed, especially in privately own newspapers. Unless one privately owns one.

---

quote:

---

mph, I was asking you to elaborate on the disconnect you mentioned.

---

quote:

---

Instead, to me, burning the flag is closer to urinating on someone's grave, or smearing feces on the front door of a court or church house. It is a mode of expression which is meant to be shocking, offensive, and desecrating.

---

quote:

---

My statement wasn't about trading liberties so much as it was priority of liberties. We argue about flag burning, but how much will that affect your every day life? Do you burn a coupla flags on your way to work every morning? (Well, you do if you live in Berkeley... And have a job.) I don't think so. But equal marriage rights ARE an everyday thing. Lower taxes are an everyday thing. Even Abortion is an every day thing because you live with it, one way or another, the rest of your life.

---

quote:

---

You're not criticizing the leaders when you torch a flag, you're criticizing the nation. The American flag isn't President Bush's symbol, or President Clinton's symbol, or your Senator's symbol, it's the nation's symbol.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

I'm going to decline, not because I can't find them, but because I think it has been covered enough in the media and for that matter on this website to the point where the behavior should be accepted as something that has happened, so I'm not going to go through the effort to put a list together. If you seriously question the inferences Administration officials have made (and may or may not have outright said so, but I can't recall a time off the top of my head), then I question how often you've watch or read national political news in the last two and a half years.

---

I see. Could you please list all the things I can ask for evidence about without being accused of being ill-informed? I'd like to know if there are any other cherished memes I mustn't question on pain of being called ignorant.

I have a hard time believing you actually said that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

Remember when the Bush Administration more or less equated questioning their leadership with a lack of patriotism?

---

Could you quote some examples of this? "More or less" leaves a lot of room for interpretation, so I'd like to know to exactly what you're referring before responding.

---

quote:

---

December 2001: In response to Democratic plans to question parts of the USA Patriot Act during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, John Ashcroft suggests that people who disagree with the administration's anti-terrorism policies are on the side of the terrorists. "To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil."

---

quote:

---

February 2002: Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle expresses mild disagreement with US anti-terror policies, saying US success in the war on terror "is still somewhat in doubt." In response, Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) says that Daschle's "divisive comments have the effect of giving aid and comfort to our enemies by allowing them to exploit divisions in our country."

---

quote:

---

July 2005: Senator Dick Durbin states that a description of US interrogation procedures at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility sounds like something "done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Presidential adviser Karl Rove responds by suggesting that Durbin and other liberals seek to put US troops in danger, saying that "Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."

---

quote:

---

Now like I said, you’ll never specifically hear them use the word “patriotism” but it isn’t hard to miss the references. When you claim that bemoaning the PATRIOT ACT’s removal of liberties is in fact aiding terrorists, eroding national unity, diminishing our resolve, arming our enemies, and hurting diplomatic ties with allies, I think that is tantamount to calling someone a traitor and/or treasonous, and I think he’s calling them unpatriotic, because patriots don’t do those types of things. It is a clear attack on the loyalty of those that speak against the Administration, as the Administration in this case supports the PATRIOT ACT.

---

quote:

---

I think some of your defense of their statemens begins from a position of assumed good faith.

---

quote:

---

CARVILLE: Richard Clarke says the Bush administration blew its chance to take down al Qaeda by going after Iraq. And so just today in a newly released audiotape we've got al Qaeda's No. 2 guy supposedly calling for the overthrow of Pakistan's government.

To debate the extent of the Bush administration's incompetence we're joined from Capitol Hill by Democratic Congressman and my dear friend and general pain in the behind Congressman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois. And one of my favorite Republicans, Congressman Peter King of New York. Thank you all for coming.

MESERVE: Congressman Emmanuel, let me read to you from Richard Clarke's resignation letter to President Bush just about a year ago. Said, "It has been an enormous privilege to serve you these last 24 months. I will always the courage, determination, calm and leadership you demonstrated on September 11."

And then at yesterday's hearing, Mr. Emmanuel, when Mr. Clarke was challenged why besides that (UNINTELLIGIBLE) language and a briefing with the press he had been even more supportive of the president. Why did he say that? Here's what his answer was. Let's listen to it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLARKE: I was asked to highlight the positive aspects of what the administration had done, and to minimize the negative aspects of what the administration had done.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

NOVAK: In other words, this guy is a spin artist. You know, how can you tell he's telling the truth now when he says he wasn't telling the truth a year ago when he was briefing the press?

REP. RAHM EMANUEL (D), ILLINOIS: Bob, I think I know something about spin. Dick Clarke is not a spin artist. And the fact is, look, when I worked with him, you had good days and bad days. He was a tough guy to work with. He worked for Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton and this president. Three Republicans, one Democrat. But nobody ever questions his patriotism. You may not like the way he forcefully -- I'm like a dog with a bone. He's like a dog with a bone. He was tough. But he always did it because he thought of protecting America. He thought what he wanted to do was right for America.

To question his patriotism or to somehow what he's doing is political you're missing the point. This guy is a true patriot. You may not agree with him.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Congressman, I am so sick of every time I criticize one of the Bush bashers, they say you're questioning his patriotism. I didn't say a damn thing about patriotism.

(CROSSTALK)

NOVAK: Let me repeat -- let me repeat what my question was. And don't give me this patriotism baloney. I'm asking you, how can you tell...

EMANUEL: Bob, it's great to be on the show.

NOVAK: Wait a minute, let me ask the question. How can you tell when he's telling the truth when he says I was just giving a lot of baloney before? How do you know he's telling the truth now?

EMANUEL: Because he was there. That was a different question than what you asked, Bob.

But what you said to me, he was just a spin artist. I said no he's not a spin artist. He happens to be a patriot. I didn't say you questioned his patriotism, No. 1.

No. 2, as Dick Clarke oversaw -- the war on terrorism. He has a very particular point that's worth debating if you want to have a debate, which is by going to war in Iraq we diverted resources from the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.

Recently we just sent some resources to Afghanistan we couldn't have sent because we had them tied down in Iraq. That is a legitimate policy discussion. And he made that claim. I happen to think it's right. And that is a legitimate -- being held in this country. That doesn't make him a spin artist. Happens to make him a person who has a view on foreign policy.

---

quote:

---

Burning, historically throughout the ages, can mean a ritualistic sacrifice, it can mean a showing of honor and devotion, and yes, it can be a form of open contempt and intended offense, but I don’t think that burning has the same automatic offense that defecating/urinating has.

---

quote:

---

But it's very different when it's purposely done as a shocking, offensive, and degrading act.

---

quote:

---

Each individual comment is read starting from the assumption of bad faith - not merely a lack of an assumption of good faith

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Burning, historically throughout the ages, can mean a ritualistic sacrifice, it can mean a showing of honor and devotion, and yes, it can be a form of open contempt and intended offense, but I don’t think that burning has the same automatic offense that defecating/urinating has.

---

Automatically? Obviously not, since someone can burn a flag in order to honorably retire it. But it's very different when it's purposely done as a shocking, offensive, and degrading act.

Just because fire can be used to honor someone in a funeral pyre doesn't mean that burning someone in effigy is somehow honoring them.

---

quote:

---

Given the Bush Administration's actions over the last seven years, is that really a big surprise?

---

quote:

---

I should also add that given the examples I have given you, and the example you gave me, it's all the more important to view each individual circumstance separately and consider the context, who is saying it, and what specifically is being said.

---

quote:

---

But you are specifically applying a universal context to the administration statements. In the process of considering them individually, you're applying the reputation of all the other statements.

---

quote:

---

But regardless of ME, I think if you showed many of those quotes to random people you'd find several who'd agree with me.

---

quote:

---

If their words fall lockstep in with a larger pattern, wouldn't it only be logical and fair to include that larger pattern as a determining factor in making a judgment on the matter?

---

quote:

---

I don't think comparing burning to defecation is that useful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

I don't think comparing burning to defecation is that useful.

---

I think it is very useful in explaining how disrespectful I personally find it to be, which I was asked to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
Are you seriously suggesting that it is inappropriate for me to explore why I view the situation differently than others do?

I'm not striving to convince anyone. If I can manage to understand and to be understood, I call that a good conversation.

---

quote:

---

Saying that your opponent is supporting our declared enemies and is giving them aid and comfort either suggests that your opponent is a traitor, and thus unpatriotic, or is so willfully stupid that they can't fathom how truly harmful their actions are.

---

quote:

---

I don't find the statements as ambiguous as you do. They are out to stifle debate and stifle dissent. Just because they suck at it doesn't change what they are trying to do, and I don't plan on letting them off the hook for it.

---

quote:

---

And there are many more examples out there (did you read my links above?), but I'm on a forum, I'm not writing a term paper, and I'm perfectly content with not having convinced you that I'm right in the end.

---

quote:

---

And besides, isn't the editorial page of your local newspaper a vastly better symbol of your right to criticize one's leaders?

---

quote:

---

And where did taxes and the economy even enter into this debate?

---

quote:

---

Republicans sent the message that the kind of debate that Democrats wanted was inappropriate during a time of war, that trying to even stop a war in progress was inappropriate in a time of war, and that discussing it in the public sphere was treasonous. And that last bit is supported in my quotes above.

---

quote:

---

I'm suggesting that they are trying to avoid the argument entirely by shutting it down, I don't see the comparison as valid. I want them to let the debate happen, for better or for worse for my own particular side.

---

quote:

---

If you consider me trying to keep a debate alive to be a form of stifling dissent, well, I find that to be a very odd position, but that's just my opinion

---

quote:

---

I think the accusation is premised on the Bush Administration not being forthright with the American people, and the accusation is a direct result of their actions. The Bush Administration has NOT dealt with the American people in good faith, and without trust and good faith, I think this: "the American public possessing a strange combination of lack of backbone, power to suppress dissent, and the ability to read between the lines, and the lack of ability to read between the lines." is all moot. If the people don't trust their leader, it doesn't matter if they have backbone or not, they won't believe they need to have a backbone if they don't buy his premise.

---

quote:

---

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. (emphasis added, obviously)

---

quote:

---

I see the "they're questioning my patriotism" accusations specifically as intended to stifle certain forms of discourse. If someone thinks that certain forms of dissent help our enemies, they should say so. The people making the dissent should then demonstrate either 1) the dissent does not help our enemies or 2) any help to enemies is outweighed by the importance of the dissent.

---

quote:

---

You, are, however, attempting to label a particular position as "out of bounds" in some way - exactly what you accuse the administration of doing.

Censorship and dissent-stifling is as loaded an accusation as unpatriotism, and you're using it with the desired goal of carving out a whole category of argument.

---

quote:

---

1. No, which is why I was being specific.

---

quote:

---

So explain to me please, how when a Republican charges a Democrat with giving aid and comfort to the enemy by criticizing the war, they are NOT charging them with treason? And then explain to me please, how treason is not unpatriotic?

---

quote:

---

Let me get this straight, one side argues the merits of a debate, and the other side argues the merits of HAVING the debate, and that ISN'T stifling debate? I'm not saying there isn't SOME merit to having the debate over the debate, but after a few years, after avoiding the debate countless times, when does that become a problem? Never? And how does that NOT engender bad faith? Wouldn’t it be advantageous to stop trying to stifle the debate and just have it?

---

quote:

---

The problem is that it isn't an argument IN the debate, it's an argument used to STOP the debate.

---

quote:

---

Please show me where I am doing that. So far as I can tell, I’m identifying a debate tactic and vilifying it, which I think is perfectly valid, it’s what you claim the Republicans are doing, why can’t I?

---

quote:

---

And while I might agree that those people haven't much to add to public discourse, they still get to vote. They have as much right to control the destiny of this country as someone who is informed. So we have to care about how they are manipulated.

---

quote:

---

So we agree that what I'm saying is perfectly fair and valid?

Good, I'm glad we settled that.

---

quote:

---

So when they say something like "aid and comfort to the enemy" they mean for the average American to connect that instantly to Treason.

---

quote:

---

I think you're ignoring cause and effect, what politicans say and WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS rather than what WOULD happen IF every American decided to write a research paper on political speeches.

---

quote:

---

But like I said before, I don't have to convince you, and now that you've assigned some sort of motive to my words, I don't think it's anywhere near possible that I could even get you to understand my point of view, let alone convince you I'm right.

---

quote:

---

I don't buy into the whole "code phrase" mentality where the "real" meaning of what someone said is explained by their political opponents.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Just peanut gallerying here...

Maybe "Stop questioning our patriotism" is a code word for "Stop pointing out our treason"

---

Or code for, "We miss having a majority in the congress and senate!"
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Or, "Pink boas for everyone! Kiss me, you fool! Kiss me now!"


 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The irony of Pixiest's comment is that I've heard that one seriously advanced.
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
The irony of Pixiest's comment is that I've heard that one seriously advanced.

---

quote:

---

Bush DID say that Saddam was linked to 9/11, that IRAQ was linked.

---

quote:

---

I don't get how my position is so wildly different from theirs as far as methodology goes

---

quote:

---

I don't like the way they are going about their arugments, and I am saying so, what are you taking issue with?

---

quote:

---

The vice president also said: "If we are successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good, representative government in Iraq that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

---

quote:

---

That you are not holding yourself to the standard you are attempting to hold them to.

---

quote:

---

In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

---

quote:

---

Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year (2003), attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.

---

quote:

---

The simple fact is that he didn't say it. Got that? He didn't say it.

---

quote:

---

Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained.

--President Bush in his State of the Union address, January 2003. He made these comments in the context of the links he perceived between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

The simple fact is that he didn't say it. Got that? He didn't say it.

---

I hate when people disregard honesty in an attempt to defend people who have done wrong.

---

quote:

---

Dag, do you believe that it is possible for people to strongly imply things which they deliberately do not say?

---

quote:

---

He certainly implied it:

---

quote:

---

Dag, he didn't need to say it. The Administration created that impression without saying it. They put the two things together enough to create that impression. This is a common way to manipulate people. Advertisers do it all the time. It is how we sell things. It served their purpose, which was to get the American people to support the war in Iraq.

Do you really think that impression was an accident?

---

quote:

---

Or are you accusing me of being dishonest, in which case, according to the standards you constantly try to push on this board, you owe at least some kind of explanation. Not that it would matter, because if you are accusing me of dishonesty then you are lying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

So we agree that what I'm saying is perfectly fair and valid?

Good, I'm glad we settled that.

---

And for the same reasons, what the administration is doing is fair. If I apply your standards, what you are doing is unfair (or somehow wrong).

quote:

---

So when they say something like "aid and comfort to the enemy" they mean for the average American to connect that instantly to Treason.

---

The average person doesn't connect those words with treason - it requires knowledge of the treason clause, something most people aren't even aware of, let alone know it well enough to connect it "instantly."

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Or are you accusing me of being dishonest, in which case, according to the standards you constantly try to push on this board, you owe at least some kind of explanation. Not that it would matter, because if you are accusing me of dishonesty then you are lying.

---

People who defend people vigorously often step far outside the bounds of honesty. Dag, you seem to me to often defend things extremely vigorously. There are many people who defend President Bush by lying or by playing games with the truth and you are one of the people who defend President Bush, and your manner in doing often stikes me as overly vigorous.

---

quote:

---

It was always excruciatingly clear to me that Bush was specifically not saying that Saddam was involved in 9/11.

---

It was always excruciatingly clear that he was specifically not saying it, but implying it loudly. We've had that conversation, too.

------

Squick, that was uncalled-for. I don't think Dag is ever deliberately dishonest; I just think, when it comes to political figures, he's even more hyperliteral than Porter.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Guys, Squick is making a point about juxtiposing things without saying them.

If you pay as careful attention to his posts as Dag did to the President's speeches it will be excruciatingly clear that Squick never said Dag was lying.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Do you really not get the point? (edit: dkw got it.)

How can you be upset about what I'm doing while at the same time defending President Bush for doing the same thing?

For example:

quote:

---

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America.

---

quote:

---

Knight Ridder pointed out on March 21 that, in a letter Bush sent to Congress at the beginning of the Iraq war, the president asserted that military action was "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

---

quote:

---

On September 14, 2003, Cheney said the following on NBC's Meet the Press: "If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."

---

quote:

---

I'm going to assume you selected the quotation you thought provided the strongest demonstration of an implied link. And, quite frankly, it implies no such thing.

If Iran were to build and deploy a dirty bomb, you can bet we'd pay a hell of a lot more attention to North Korea than we do now. Such attention would not suggest that we thought North Korea had anything to do with it.

It's an incredibly common event for the commission of a particularly horrifying crime by one criminal to result in extended crackdowns on related crime by totally unrelated criminals. A drive by that kills a little girl leads to a crackdown on all drug dealers, even those not connected.

---

quote:

---

It was always excruciatingly clear that he was specifically not saying it, but implying it loudly.

---

quote:

---

Dag, the average person DOES associate that with treason, at least these days, specifically because of the way the administration has repeatedly portrayed them in regards to people who disagree with the war in Iraq.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dkw:
Guys, Squick is making a point about juxtiposing things without saying them.

If you pay as careful attention to his posts as Dag did to the President's speeches it will be excruciatingly clear that Squick never said Dag was lying.

---

---

quote:

---

If the police decided to ramp up the war on drugs as a result, I would think that a tenuoust link being used to further an unrelated agenda.

---

quote:

---

So if 9/11 spurred pre-imptive action or concern over possible related crimes, the action should have included responses to ALL related threats, not just one out of dozens. I think the singling out of this one particlur threat as a result indicates that there is another agenda being followed.

---

quote:

---

wondering why he considers his games acceptable.

---

quote:

---

But they do, all the time.

---

quote:

---

I don't think that's true.

---

quote:

---

Where did you do that? I missed the part where you asked this. If you can point it out, I can answer the question more fully.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

It was always excruciatingly clear that he was specifically not saying it, but implying it loudly.

---

If he hadn't taken great pains to explain all the other reasons he was speaking of both at once.

---

quote:

---

Wow. If that is true then the President needs to fire his media advisors and speech writers because he pretty spectacularly failed to make clear that he wasn't connecting the two.

---

quote:

---

Wow. If that is true then the President needs to fire his media advisors and speech writers because he pretty spectacularly failed to make clear that he wasn't connecting the two.

---

quote:

---

He was connecting the two. He was not saying that Saddam or Iraq were involved in 9/11.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dagonee:

quote:

---

It was always excruciatingly clear that he was specifically not saying it, but implying it loudly.

---

If he hadn't taken great pains to explain all the other reasons he was speaking of both at once.

---

Wow. If that is true then the President needs to fire his media advisors and speech writers because he pretty spectacularly failed to make clear that he wasn't connecting the two.

---

quote:

---

Knight Ridder pointed out on March 21 that, in a letter Bush sent to Congress at the beginning of the Iraq war, the president asserted that military action was "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
If you are wondering why I think that it is okay, how do you have the confidence to call me a hypocrite? Can you read my mind so that you know that I don't have a non-hypocritical reason for my behavior? If not, I have no idea how you have the ability to say that.

---

quote:

---

Knight Ridder pointed out on March 21 that, in a letter Bush sent to Congress at the beginning of the Iraq war, the president asserted that military action was "consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

---

quote:

---

Sadaam Hussein falls well within the realm of terrorism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

Sadaam Hussein falls well within the realm of terrorism.

---

How so?

---

quote:

---

I still don't understand how people, like Dag, can take exception to my statements while defending the Prsident's while maintaining a consistent set of standards. Could someone explain that to me?

---

quote:

---

By employing terror as a means to retain power and accomplish his aims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

Sadaam Hussein falls well within the realm of terrorism.

---

How so?

---

By employing terror as a means to retain power and accomplish his aims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

By employing terror as a means to retain power and accomplish his aims.

---

Where did you get that definition from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
BB, Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, but I think "terrorist"in this context refers to people who use asymmetric warfare tactics rather than people who are in power.

---

quote:

---

A person who employs terror in his work is a terrorist.

---

quote:

---

If you couldn't put it together that I thought you were playing games from my response to you, I can't help you.

---

quote:

---

ter·ror·ism
(tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

---

quote:

---

Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Hm. If Truman had dropped bombs on civilian populations after Japan surrendered, I'd say that made him a psychopathic murderer, not a terrorist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Also, the U.S. State Department keeps an official list of what hey consider terrorists. If we're going to put the President's statements in context, it should be noted that neither Stephen King nor Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi government ever showed up on this list.

---

I was not aware of the latter, though fully of Mr. King . Also I doubt the list is entitled, "People who are scary or use fear to do things."

I need to see the official title of this list that does not include Saddam Hussein or his governmental regime.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Here ya go.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
What does that make our "Shock and Awe" campaign?
 

---

Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
 

quote:

---

* Section 212(a)(3)(B) of the INA defines "terrorist activity" to mean: "any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:

---

quote:

---

** Section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
BB,
You may have missed this part:

quote:

---

** Section 140(d)(2) of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1988 and 1989 defines "terrorism" as "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

---

Look, we're having a conversation right now that, to me, is equivilent to arguing about whether an airplane is a bird because it flies.

I am completely confident that there is absolutely no way, in this context, that anyone of the players understood the term the way you are presenting it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I am not aware of the British retaliation to the German Stuka bombers. ...

---

quote:

---

Hitler had already made one bad mistake, when he'd switched his tactic to focus on the bombing of British cities, just at the time when he was winning the air battle over England. Invading Russia was an even worse blunder. And the Luftwaffe that attacked Russia was not the Luftwaffe of 1940. The RAF had seen to that.

Strangely, though, the British did not immediately learn from their victory. In retaliation for the German bombing of British cities, instead of recognising that it was not a productive tactic, the RAF began a limited bombing campaign against German targets, using similar medium, two-engined bombers such as the Wellington. Attempts at precision attacks were so ineffective that Bomber Command then switched to 'area bombing'. Only when the big four-engined bombers - such as the British Lancaster and the US B-17 'Flying Fortress' - came in, from 1942, did Allied bombing start becoming effective.

---

quote:

---

Getting back to a point I was expecting to hit before the terrorist thing, you seem to be saying that the Bush administration regarded Iraq as a largely separate issue from al Queda. Would that be a correct summation?

---

quote:

---

"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the Al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. . . . From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. . . . We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida. . . . A detained al-Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al-Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies . . . . Some believe, some claim, these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein's secular tyranny and al-Qaida's religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaida together, enough so al-Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that al-Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction."
Source: Remarks to the United Nations Security Council, United Nations (2/5/2003).

---

quote:

---

BBC: The President has actually now put Iraq central stage rather than al Qaeda in this global war on terrorism --

Wolfowitz: You can't separate them. In fact al Qaeda has put Iraq center stage. I think Zawahiri in his latest tape says that. They're al Qaeda people. They've been in Iraq before the war, they were there during the war, they're there now, and they see any opportunity to kill Americans, to defeat Americans, as part of their war.

---

quote:

---

Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. . . . From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. . . . We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Here's a fun one from then Asst. Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz (from here):

quote:

---

BBC: The President has actually now put Iraq central stage rather than al Qaeda in this global war on terrorism --

Wolfowitz: You can't separate them. In fact al Qaeda has put Iraq center stage. I think Zawahiri in his latest tape says that. They're al Qaeda people. They've been in Iraq before the war, they were there during the war, they're there now, and they see any opportunity to kill Americans, to defeat Americans, as part of their war.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
No, they weren't. In particular, these were either false or misleading:

quote:

---

Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. . . . From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. . . . We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al-Qaida

---

---

quote:

---

Also, there is no evidence that al Queda was in the Iraq before or during the war.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
So...if I'm following you...Iraq wasn't harboring Al-Qaeda before the invasion, so we claimed they were because, if we invaded, they would?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Sorry...I'm still not understanding how that is different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fugu13:
Not just the 'decades' statement, every statement made there has been found to be untrue. There were no high level collaborations. There was no training of al qaeda operatives. There was no free operation in Baghdad.

There are records of operations against terrorists who were operating in Iraq (not out of altruism, the terrorsts' operations were sometimes against the Iraqi regime, which Al Qaeda was known to strongly dislike).

Any argument that constructs the Hussein regime in Iraq as a threat based on some potential to aid terrorists must explain a history of contrary behavior and deal with why it matters with Iraq when even the highest level of operation of al qaeda in Iraq was less than typical operation of terrorist groups in numerous surrounding countries.

---

quote:

---

Hussein was a threat by himself. Removing him also removed the possibility that he could, should he ever decide to, provide advanced weaponry to Al Qaeda operatives.

---

quote:

---

They want us in Iraq where they can get all like minded men to fight us there, where sectarian violence can be easily summoned, and once our media and people scream at us loud enough to leave, they can say to themselves, "See See! Americans are gutless, and we can beat them, we are after all Allah's soldiers!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackBlade:
Look my definition is broad, but clearly I do not believe overtly so.

If my wife intentionally steps on a spider I do not call her a murderer even though by a loose interpretation she fits the bill.

---

quote:

---

But that allows anyone to say "Saddam supported terrorists" and then in the same breath mention 9/11 or Al Qaeda, because we all know that he DID support terrorists, but it's the inference that is the problem, even though if you look at Bush and his subordinates' words literally, it comes off as the truth.

---

quote:

---

Alright, if your cause has nothing to do at all with national safety, then I agree with you.

---

quote:

---

There are other countries that directly fund the terrorists that attacked us 9/11, so what did we do, we ran straight towards Israel's enemy? Makes zero sense in my book, and when you make the reference in a speech WITHOUT declaring the context, then I think it is misleading. You're making people think that by attacking Saddam that you're making yourself safer, but you aren't.

---

quote:

---

Therefore, it is misleading, unless everyone agrees that we're all on the same righteous crusade to end terrorism regardless of who the terrorists are fighting. Do you agree that that is what Americans all believe? That's like saying we have to end terrorism for the sake of ending terrorism, not because terrorists are a threat to us. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are more our enemies than Iraq was, but we went after someone else's bad guy. It's misleading.

---

quote:

---

Interesting. So, unless a politician can precisely match their speeches and policies to what everyone agrees, they're being misleading?

---

quote:

---

I'm certain you're aware of a hole host of reasons why we didn't go after those two nations. Could we have done better than Iraq? Yes, I think we could have. Those two nations, though? Nuh-uh.

---

quote:

---

Going after Iraq after being attacked by an Al Qaeda funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is like going after Russia after we were bombed at Pearl Harbor.

---

quote:

---

Well, theoretically if you want to follow the metaphor PRECISELY, then it would have been like attacking Germany and leaving Japan at our backdoorstep untended.

---

quote:

---

Except that we also went to Afghanistan so it would have been like attacking Germany and simultaneously attacking Japan, which is what we did.

---

quote:

---

but the intelligence community and the administration demonstrably (and in some cases, provably with lies or complete incompetence) ignored many of these expert opinions.

---

quote:

---

Into what? Inspectors were in Iraq. Why do you think they didn't allow inspectors in? There were some places where access was more troublesome (the Palace for example as I recall) but there were inspectors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

Into what? Inspectors were in Iraq. Why do you think they didn't allow inspectors in? There were some places where access was more troublesome (the Palace for example as I recall) but there were inspectors.

---

I wish I knew. Just plain stupid?

---

quote:

---

Why is it that you incorrectly believe that inspectors were not allowed in when, actually, they were?

---

quote:

---

But seriously, faced with continuing defiance or prevarication, if you were in charge, what would you have though, boots?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

Why is it that you incorrectly believe that inspectors were not allowed in when, actually, they were?

---

NPR Timeline

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DarkKnight:

quote:

---

Why is it that you incorrectly believe that inspectors were not allowed in when, actually, they were?

---

NPR Timeline

---

Did you read your link? We pulled inspectors out in 1998 and they went back in in 2002. Although Hussein cooperated grudgingly and incompletely, he did invite inspectors back in late 2002.

---

quote:

---

The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes. Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives 3-4 months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation. Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and UNMOVIC is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

---

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Given that, I would have let the inspectors continue to resolve disarmament issues. What, exactly, was the rush? With regard to the rest, Lyrhawn's plan looks pretty good.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I think there's just a disconnect here.

When I hear the words "grudging and incompletely" to describe access granted to weapons inspectors by someone such as Saddam Hussein and his government...well, to me there's only one truly logical conclusion to come to: he's hiding something.

Yes, I know that might not be the right conclusion, but it's still the only sensible one to reach.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
So the right conclusion wasn't sensible? The logical conclusion, to me, was that he was an arrogant man who balked at submission and that their record keeping of what they had and what had been detroyed (both in compliance and what was destroyed in Desert Storm and Desert Fox) was bad.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
Just because it's right doesn't make it sensible. I think that we can all agree that 'sensible' and 'correct' aren't synonymous.

And that's the truthfully logical conclusion, given his history of using WMDs on civilian populations, his long-term antagonism of the United States, and his associations with terrorism?

I have to wonder if this is just part of the disconnect then, because to me-even though it turned out to be wrong-I cannot say I would have done differently.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I would have. Again, what was the hurry? He hadn't used WMD against anybody since 1988 - except once in 1991 - when we didn't have a problem with it. He wasn't antagonistic toward the US before 1991; he was, if anything, an ally. We supplied him with many of those WMD. He was working for "our interests" before we surprised him with our reaction to the invasion of Kuwait.

His associations with terrorism - paying the families of suicide bombers - were no more (and considerably less) than most rulers of Islamic countries, including our allies.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
What was the hurry? You could just as well ask what the hurry was for greater scrutiny of flight-schools and visas in the spring of 2001.

Your bringing up of his relationship with the United States prior to 1991 is totally irrelevant. Can you explain to me why that matters in the slightest?

The same for his supplier.

I dispute just how much we 'surprised' him.

At least you cede the associations with terrorism, though.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
He hadn't done anything for ten years. As far as we know, he had no plans or capability to do anything. What he had done (with regard to attackis with WMD) was done with our sanction - when he was on "our side" against Iran. When you talk about his "long-term antagonism against the US" you might want to explain what that entailed. And when you talk about his use of WMD's you might also want to put that in context. As none of it indicated any threat to us.

I think he was pretty surprised as he had discussed the invasion with April Glaspie, our ambassador, and she said that it was not our concern.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
He hadn't done anything for ten years? Are you sure you don't want to reconsider that statement? I don't cede the "with our sanction" part either, but I'm not certain about it.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
He hadn't used WMD since 1988 except for once in 1991. More than ten years.

And here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

Behind our public condemnation of chemical weapons, we renewed diplomatic and trade relations.

[ May 25, 2007, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I didn't say he hadn't used WMD in over ten years.

What, that's all it takes to be considered a threat? Use of WMD?

This is what I mean when I say your reasoning is both illogical and unreasonable.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I don't think kmb is saying that we should have totally ignored Iraq, clearly they had issues that needed to be resolved. She's taking issue with our methods for resolving them, our horribly bad, inept methods, especially when a much better path was there and we went the other way.

The rush to war was unnecessary. The calling of attention to Saddam and his regime's problems was totally justified.

Also Rakeesh, if you have time, I'd like to hear your comments on my "plan." If I had to guess, I'd say you'd scoff at solving Palestine/Israel and using war funds to break our oil addiction, but I'd be pleasantly surprised if I was wrong.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 
I'm sorry, I haven't been reading HR as much as I often do. I guess I'm in the trough rather than at the crest, so to speak. Nothing personal. I'll go take a look at your plan, but I can't promise promptness

---------

As for what kmb is actually saying, again, I'm pointing out that we're in perfect hindsight now. And also that, in my opinion, if you're not going to have weapons inspectors with full access-particularly in those circumstances-what's the point of having them at all, really?

The rush to war, in retrospect, was unnecessary. At the time, it was anything but unnecessary.
 

---

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
 
I was under the impression that they had much much greater access, to places including the palaces that Saddam had before called off limits, and that they could do surprise inspections, whereas before they had to give notice before they arrived. But I'll admit my specific knowledge on that is a bit shaky and I could be wrong.

I'm not wholly convinced that at the time the rush was necessary. The war, given Bush's insistance, might have been inevitable, even in the context of what had happened and what was going on, I think the rush was entirely of Bush's creation and design. Outside of his push, I don't think it was necessary, maybe just unavoidable given national emotions at the time.

.........................

quote:

---

I'm sorry, I haven't been reading HR as much as I often do. I guess I'm in the trough rather than at the crest, so to speak. Nothing personal. I'll go take a look at your plan, but I can't promise promptness

---

Thanks I appreciate that.
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

I was under the impression that they had much much greater access, to places including the palaces that Saddam had before called off limits, and that they could do surprise inspections, whereas before they had to give notice before they arrived. But I'll admit my specific knowledge on that is a bit shaky and I could be wrong.

---

quote:

---

See, this is where the disconnect comes into play for me. I liken this to a parole officer and parolee. Does the parolee get to say, "OK, you can search my house, car, workplace, and do surprise visits to all of those locations...but not my shed out back, and you can come into my garage only when you notify me?"

Of course not!

And if you're the parole officer, what exactly are you going to think when your charge tells you things like that?

---

quote:

---

By Adminstration do you mean the Clinton Administration? The French Administration? The German Administration? The UN Administration? because all of those Administrations said that Iraq had WMDs.

---

I'm only aware of solid proof of lies or complete incompetence for the following people: Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and arguably Colin Powell. This is because there were verifiably briefings given to them regarding the numerous and likely possible uses of aluminum tubes in areas other than Iraq's (assumed) nuclear programs -- statements backed up by the DOE and most of its nuclear engineers, some of the world's top experts -- but they then all made speeches to the public stating there were no possible uses for the tubes other than nuclear refinement (Powell said something like "almost no", which is also blatantly untrue, but at least slightly qualified).

There might be other proof of lies (or complete incompetence in ignoring/misunderstanding the briefing -- not to mention several other documents they are recorded as having been sent by the DOE), too, but those are the most well documented.

Most everyone else in the Bush administration, including Bush himself, and most people in other administrations, were probably simply mistaken and/or mislead. There may have been people who lied as well, but I know of no proof otherwise.

Your quotations certainly don't suggest it; Senator Clinton was reporting the views of the intelligence community as presented to her (and doing so accurately), Gore was out of office, and his statement was likely literally true when he left office -- Saddam had secured stores of those weapons around the country, but it turned out they weren't maintained properly, resulting in useless material. President Clinton spoke vaguely about getting inspectors in to curtail any WMD programs Iraq had.

If you're going to try to imply others share the blame for lies or complete incompetence (I should be explicit: I mean completely tuning out or failing to realize the implications of an explicit briefing on the status of WMD-related intelligence that seriously undermines the case for their presence), then at least provide some evidence thereof.

Do you have any evidence to support lies by members of other administrations? Clinton's was certainly intensely scrutinized when he just used missiles and planes against Iraq, as you can note in the very link you posted.
 

---

Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
 
OK, I don't want to derail the conversation as it is, so ignore my post if you want to, I just need to post my thoughts about the original subject before I forget them.

Anyway, the way I see it, burning a flag is a symbolic act in and of itself. For example, if I were to burn a plain white flag, the message would be one of "Never Surrender"

Hypothetically, if Congress were to meet tomorrow and repeal the Bill of Rights but kept the flag the same, would the flag still represent the same thing? I don't think so, under such circumstances, burning the flag could be an act of civil disobedience, and a direct challenge to the leaders of the nation who have strayed from what the flag used to represent (in this context at least.)

IMO, burning a flag is supposed to be disrespectful, it's meant to symbolize a person's belief that the ideology that the flag represents has been altered or forgotten. In burning it, you say to such leaders that their actions or rhetoric violates the founding concepts of this nation. So, I guess that I probably disagree a little with Penn and Teller's burning the flag in celebration of the freedoms they enjoy, but I agree with their sentiment. If the ideals of the Bill of Rights were done away with, the Flag would cease to represent what it currently does, in my mind at least.

All right, my two cents is off my mind, I apologize if I'm just beating a dead horse... Continue
 

---

Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
 

quote:

---

I'm only aware of solid proof of lies or complete incompetence for the following people: Condoleeza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and arguably Colin Powell.

---

quote:

---

President Clinton spoke vaguely about getting inspectors in to curtail any WMD programs Iraq had.

---

quote:

---

Solid proof is allowing Iraq to constantly break all of the UN resolutions placed against it so I would think that should give you proof against Clinton of complete incompetence at least. Iraq lost the war yet in a few months was able to keep the world in the dark about his WMDs and did so for years and years and years. Clinton should have forced this issue in 1992 but didn't.

---

quote:

---

Vague Clinton quotes? How about the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which Clinton signed into law?

---

quote:

---

Also, Clinton should have forced the issue in 1992?! He wasn't even inaugurated until 1993! And Iraq was being relatively docile for a short while after the war.

---

quote:

---

I'm talking about a level of incompetence so great that it would clearly make them unqualified to serve in their posts, and I only really mention it because its a theoretical alternative to lying, which is a far more likely explanation

---